that one of these men should be a stenographer. Then we have got a librarian at $1,200. We think that the work of the office will be facilitated if we have somebody of that sort to look after the books and records that have to be used in the Assistant Attorney General's office.

Mr. GILLETT. It seems to me that that total must be wrong, because you have an increase of only three, and you ask for an increase of $8,000.

Secretary FISHER. The chairman, as I understand it, says that there is an increase of more than that figure.

Mr. GILLETT. On page 206 you see a statement giving the total amount appropriated, and the increase is from $65,850 to $73,550. But you seem to have only three additional

Mr. COURTS (interposing). They have cut out three and put back six, and it means an increase of three. There is a total increase of three, and they make an increase in the appropriation of about $8,000.

Mr. JOHNSON. But when you consider that the duties of the people you propose to eliminate from that office are performed by other men transferred from another place, it is still increasing that force by six men.

Secretary FISHER. The work of the office justifies it. I am assuming that somebody else is going to be responsible for this office, and all I want to say is that if he does not get that increase in the Assistant Attorney General's office, he will be very badly hampered. Of course the increase of three there is in large part based on the recommendation I have made in regard to Land Office appeals. It is my judgment that the proper way to handle Land Office appeals is to take the board of review, or whatever it is called, in the Land Office itself, and increase the salaries there sufficiently to enable us to put three good men in that office. Let there be a board of law review on the various matters that come up so that they will in that office, so far as possible, eliminate the mistakes that are being constantly discovered in the appeals that go over to the Secretary's office. Questions of law are constantly coming up. We have a considerable number of those cases involving important questions of law and we can not afford to rush that work. Naturally a great many mistakes are made, and when they are called to our attention, we have to send the cases back for reconsideration.

Now, we would like to have a board of review in the land office that would be a little more dignified than the present board of law review over there, so that these claimants can come and discuss their cases with the feeling that they are before a detached quasi-judicial tribunal with no other function to perform than to pass on these matters. This board of law review would correct many of the mistakes. Of course, there would still be a number of appeals that would come to our office, because many important questions of law would arise, but in these cases all questions of fact would have been eliminated. These cases ought to go to three men in the Assistant Attorney General's office who would do nothing else but that work, and would sit there in review on these matters and pass on them, so that all that would be necessary for the Assistant Attorney General to do would be to supervise that work and lay down the rules to be followed in crucial cases and see that these principles are followed by that

board of law review. There is a great demand in the West for having these matters decided in a more judicial way; so much so that, as you gentlemen know, there is constantly arising the suggestion that there ought to be an appeal to the courts from the decisions of the office. We are all profoundly of the opinion-that is, the people in the land office and those in the Secretary's office-that that policy can not prevail. If it does, it will convert the land office, the Assistant Attorney General's office, and the department into a huge prosecuting office, and it will change wholly the attitude of the department toward these cases.

The attitude of the department toward the claimant would be a hostile one, instead of being the reverse as it is now. The evidence in the cases would have to be prepared with due regard to the technical rules of evidence. As it is now, if a man writes a badly spelled letter or anything indicating his desire for an appeal, it is treated as an application for appeal and the case goes up. He does not have to go through any formal procedure of any kind, and the matter is treated administratively, but if we ran against these things in the courts our attitude toward them would be different. Of course, under such a procedure as that, providing an appeal to the courts, the work of the office would be enormously increased. Now, another thing: The Department of the Interior sent recommendations and reports to this Congress in the last session in over 1,000 cases. The mass of legislation affecting that department is perfectly enormous, and they always involve questions of fact and law. The Assistant Attorney General's Office is always called upon to pass upon these bills. As experienced a man as the leader of the minority, Mr. Mann, has complained on the floor of the House concerning the lack of care in the preparation of these bills. A Member sends to us a bill roughly drawn, simply to show what he desires, and then expects us to get the bill in shape so that when it comes back it will be proof against criticism. The enormous mass of this class of matter creates work in the Assistant Attorney General's Office that must be done carefully. The work in that office on the land appeals, which is just one division, is behind. The present Assistant Attorney General has made a remarkable record as to the amount of work he has performed. He is at his office long after office hours; he usually quits between 6 and 7 o'clock, and his principal assistants quit at the same time. Yet, notwithstanding all that work, he can not keep up on these land appeals. If we could get this board established we would be able to keep the work current, and promptness is of vital importance in these

cases.

I think it would arouse a feeling of confidence in the claimants and everybody else concerned if these cases could come up before a body of three men passing on these matters who sat as much as possible in a judicial capacity to hear the arguments and pass upon them, instead of having them heard by some individual, or passed through on initials. The claimants say, "That is John Jones' decision; we did not get the review of the department on the case." If we could get a dignified and competent board of three men assigned to that work, I think that you would find that the dissatisfaction now prevailing would be largely eliminated. Now, that is one of the principal things that this increase is intended to bring about.

NATIONAL PARKS.

Now, I want to refer once more to the national parks. Last year for the first time we held a conference on national parks at the Yellowstone Park, at which all of the people interested in the national parks were brought together. This year we held the conference at the Yosemite National Park. Both of these conferences were successful, and they resulted in convincing all of those present, including the railroad people representing lines leading to the national parks, the concessionaires and others on the inside, as well as the American Civic Association and other people on the outside, that what we greatly need is a bureau of national parks, or, if not thatalthough that is what we think we need-certainly some force in the chief clerk's office or in the Secretary's office that can supervise these matters relating to the national parks, so that when we hold these meetings we can get the benefit of whatever success has been achieved in any one of them and extend it to the others.

As it is now money is appropriated for the Yellowstone National Park, and another appropriation is made for the Yosemite National Park, and so on. They are treated not on any common principle at all, and we have now not a single individual in the office of the Secretary of the Interior who can be assigned to park work. We have to handle it through the chief clerk. If we successfully work out a hotel problem in the Yellowstone Park, we can not use the result of that work to advantage in the Yosemite Park under the present system of park management, except as it may happen that we may get the benefit of the experience through the chief clerk's office. We ought to have some park agency there in the department.

Mr. GILLETT. Well, what do you suggest?

Secretary FISHER. We suggest a bureau of national parks. A bill for that purpose has been introduced and has been discussed in both the House and Senate, and it may have been reported. But in the meantime I have talked with a member of your committee, Mr. Sherley, and he thought there might be some objection to the bureau system; but, as I understand it, he expressed the conviction that we might provide some force in the office of the Secretary. He suggested that there might be an engineer assigned, or perhaps an architect assigned to this work, or somebody to whom we could refer these questions, so that, even if we did not have a bureau, there might be some man to be assigned to this work.

This report from our office on the appropriations was made, necessarily, during my absence, and I did not have an opportunity to revise it when I came back, so I do not know just what the items are, but the chief clerk will call your attention to them.

PENSION OFFICE BUILDING.

In the Pension Office Building there is a situation that I want to mention to you. These scattered buildings have been coordinated by the chief clerk's office in the past to some extent that is to say, we have put the watchmen under the chief clerk, and, I think, the messenger force also. The Commissioner of Pensions thinks that we ought to turn that force over to him in the Pension Office because of the increase in his force necessitated by the new law. There is a

provision in that law abolishing the district agencies and consolidating the work here in Washington. The Commissioner of Pensions thinks he will require all of the room in the Pension Building and that he can not keep in that building the Office of Indian Affairs any longer. We sent to you just at the close of the last session of Congress a communication asking for an emergency appropriation to hire quarters for the Indian Office and to remove the Indian Office from the Pension Office Building if it became necessary. I think that some provision ought to be made in this appropriation bill for that purpose.

Mr. BURLESON. What is your judgment on that?

Secretary FISHER. On that question I have done this: I have had the Pension Commissioner to present his views and have had the chief clerk to present his views. In addition to that I requested the President's Commission on Efficiency and Economy to do a little practical work by sending some representatives up to the Pension Office to go through the building, make a thorough investigation of the whole thing, and give me a report of their views. The men are actually at work in the building to-day. They started in yesterday morning, and when I get that report I will know. If we find that we can keep the Indian Office there, the matter is not so important, but if we should find the contrary then we will be up against it.

Mr. BURLESON. I think you can keep them there.

Secretary FISHER. We will try; but I would like for you to carry somewhere an item covering the emergency, so that the matter will not be lost track of. Then I will be glad to notify the committee as soon as I get that report from the economy and efficiency committee. Mr. GILLETT. Has the Pension Office employed by this time all the extra force that is required?

Secretary FISHER. Yes, sir; I guess so.

Mr. GILLETT. He has employed all that he will have?

Secretary FISHER. All he will have except what he will get in addition as he brings in the outlying agencies. We have abolished the district agencies, but it has not taken effect yet. What I have asked the Economy Commission to do is to send a man up there to look into the physical conditions and make a report, and we will send that report to you. But in the meantime, in order to keep control of the matter, I think it would be proper to insert an item for the purpose of acquiring other quarters for the Indian Office in the event it is found necessary to remove them from the Pension Office Building. I will be glad to let you have all the information on that subject that I have. The Pension Office people are also concerned as to what you are going to do with regard to the use of the building for the inaugural ball. That is, perhaps, not on this appropriation bill. The practice heretofore, I believe, has been to turn that building over to the inaugural committee, and put everybody out on a 10 days' or 2 weeks' vacation, and let some citizens' committee raise funds to reimburse the expense of the ball.

Mr. BURLESON. I believe that all the Democrats have voted against that.

Mr. GILLETT. I voted against it.
Mr. JOHNSON. I voted against it.

67260-12--12

Secretary FISHER. It costs from $150,000 to $200,000, I think. Mr. UCKER. It simply means that the work of the bureau is at a standstill during that time.

Secretary FISHER. That is a matter which probably does not arise on this appropriation bill, but that practice certainly does interfere seriously with the work of the bureau.

RENT OF BUILDINGS.

Now, in connection with this Indian Office situation, the suggestion was made that we might use one of these buildings up near the Capitol. We had that building examined—I think it is the Maltby Building-we had it examined by the people up here and also by the Supervising Architect's Office, and they say that it would not be safe to put our people and records in there at all.

Mr. JOHNSON. What building is that?

Secretary FISHER. The Maltby Building.

Mr. JOHNSON. While we can not go in the face of the report of the Supervising Architect's Office, the Geological Survey people were up here this morning asking for an increased appropriation of $13,000 in order to get more space. I called their attention to the fact that there were a large number of buildings on these two squares here north of B Street that are now vacant, and I asked them to go down there and see if they could not find what was needed.

Secretary FISHER. I am glad you did that.

Mr. JOHNSON. They are under your jurisdiction, are they not? Secretary FISHER. Yes, sir. We have not been able to find anything that we thought we could use for the Indian Office.

Mr. BURLESON. There are a number of vacant buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue which belong to the Government. Those buildings are not being used.

Secretary FISHER. Are they under our charge?

Mr. COURTS. No, sir; they are under the Treasury Department. Secretary FISHER. If they have not sufficient space to accommodate a bureau they could not be used to advantage. It would not be economy to split these bureaus up.

Mr. JOHNSON. On New Jersey Avenue, between B and C Streets, there are five buildings belonging to the Government that are vacant.

Mr. UCKER. I have gone into that, and while they might be available there is no money at our command in the department to make the necessary alterations and changes in these buildings to fit them for occupancy. The comptroller has decided that we have no fund in the Interior Department that can be used in connection with these buildings. The question of the upkeep and repairs of these buildings has been gone into by me.

Secretary FISHER. I am in favor of economy and in using anything we have, but the chief clerk reports that there is nothing that can be used for the Indian Office there.

Mr. UCKER. It requires a pretty strongly constructed building to carry the weight of those records.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am not a builder and have not been inside of those houses.